Disable Smilies in This Post. Show Signature: include your profile signature. Only registered users may have signatures.

*If HTML and/or UBB Code are enabled, this means you can use HTML and/or UBB Code in your message.

If you have previously registered, but forgotten your password, click here.

T O P I C R E V I E W

Philip

After 25 years of STS it might be time to retire the space shuttle after all as NASA wouldn't survive a third accident!For the moment NASA planned to retire STS by 2010 and might build up a smaller ISS than originally designed ...

Astro Bill

You are probably correct - One more shuttle accident resulting in the loss of a shuttle and a crew would in all probability result in the destruction of the US manned space program, if not in the destruction of NASA itself. NASA would be replaced by another entity responsible only for unmanned launches. The Return to the Moon and Mars programs would be shelved for the next generation.

NASA Administrator Griffin knows this I am sure. He also knows that manned spaceflight is inharently dangerous. It is his hope to make the necessary changes in the shuttle system, service the Hubble Space Telescope and finish construction of the ISS as planned (not a smaller version). Then, and only then, NASA will end the shuttle program, even if it is many years before the replacement program is ready.

[This message has been edited by Astro Bill (edited January 28, 2006).]

Robert Pearlman

Griffin has stated several times that the 2010 deadline comes before everything else, so if the 18 or so flights needed for the ISS are not completed by Sept. 30, 2010 (for whatever reason), then ISS won't be completed.* The HST mission comes after all ISS flights are accomplished, so its status is even more tentative.

* Completed does not equal complete. Philip is correct when he says a smaller ISS is the goal. The vision portrayed in NASA artwork labeled as "complete" is no longer even an option, with several modules long (and newly) canceled including the U.S. hab, the Japanese centrifuge and the Russian power platform.

[This message has been edited by Robert Pearlman (edited January 28, 2006).]

Astro Bill

Apparently, we are getting mixed signals from Griffin and NASA. The last that I heard, Griffin intended to service the HST and complete the ISS. But, as you said, "completed" may not mean "complete." There are about five years left before the end of 2010. It remains to be seen how many shuttle flights can be completed before that time. Three or four a year would do the trick.

If the HST service mission is at the end of the schedule, it probably will not be serviced and it will be left to fall into the ocean like Skylab and MIR. Griffin was therefore placating the American people by his remarks in the past that the HST will be serviced. Sounds like the HST service mission is a low priority mission for Griffin.

But the point of this thread is, if there is another major catastrophe in the manned space program, that will be the end of the shuttle and NASA. However, the loss of an unmanned spacecraft (Pluto/New Horizons, etc.) would not have the same results.

[This message has been edited by Astro Bill (edited January 28, 2006).]

issman1

I was interested to hear that NASA is already downsizing its plans for the Shuttle-replacement CEV.The capsule will ride a 5 segment solid booster, will be slightly smaller and utilise an antiquated J2 engine. But more interestingly NASA has chosen to continue using corrosive, toxic fuels as opposed to the revolutionary idea of methane propellant.This just confirms what I always suspected the so-called "Vision" is: a jobs continuation project for the US aerospace industry. An industry that seems to thrive less on challenges than it does recovering from human spaceflight disasters. Whenever the next disaster occurs (though I really hope it does not), will the American people realise that just a fraction of the $500+ BILLION spent on occupying Afghanistan and Iraq today could have been invested more wisely on future astronaut safety.As for the Shuttle programme, it really can't be made anymore safer than it is right now. So why NASA is not launching STS-121 before May seems a rather bizarre decision to me. And whatever happens, it won't be flying on its 30th anniversary anyway.

[This message has been edited by collectSPACE Admin (edited January 31, 2006).]

DavidH

quote:Originally posted by issman1: Whenever the next disaster occurs (though I really hope it does not), will the American people realise that just a fraction of the $500+ BILLION spent on occupying Afghanistan and Iraq today could have been invested more wisely on future astronaut safety.

It would be really great if we could avoid non-space-related political discussion. If you want to say that more money should be budgeted for astronaut safety, that would be relevant to the discussion. There doesn't seem to use that as an excuse to bring in other political issues.

I also do not like censorship or intolerance of the opinions of others.

NASA is downsizing the space program because there are not enough funds to have another 1960's Apollo Program. NASA has a limited budget because the funds that could be used by NASA are being used for other purposes.

But is not only the war that is commanding all the available funds. The recovery from Katrina and national security are also very demending on funding, This is not a political statement, it is a fact. If NASA is to obtain more funding, it must come from someplace. Simply suggesting that it will come when the war winds down is not a political statement either. That is a fact.

[This message has been edited by Astro Bill (edited January 31, 2006).]

Hart Sastrowardoyo

I forget which astronaut said it, but it's all a matter of public perception. I'm pulling the quote and the figures off the top of my head, but this astro said, "If you ask someone if spending 1/10th of 1 percent of the Federal budget on space is enough, they'll say that's about right. If you ask the same person the equivalent question, is spending $1 billion of the budget on space is enough, and they'll say it's too much."

Mercury/Gemini/Apollo wasn't about science. It was about national security, and for that the American people were tolerant of spending multi-billions on it. (Witness the pullout of support once America landed on the Moon and the Russians were nowhere to be found.)

The current space program is different. Until an Axis of Evil country makes it into orbit, the American people have no impetus to spend money on it. Add to that the American people are impatient - they don't want long-term benefits. Sure the space program pays back $3 for every $1 spent, sure we got nifty computers and cell phones and satellites that can and do save lives. But that's yesterday's news. (And it's not just space - you can get a highway built faster if you'll tell people it'll relieve congestion now rather than for a predicted population 10 or 20 years from now.)

My opinion, of course. Your wattage may vary depending on the microwave.

Astro Bill

Returning to the original question raised by this thread, I am in agreement with Philip and Sally Ride that another fatal accident in the manned space program would end the manned space program. I think that this is obvious. This does not mean that I am opposed to the manned space program.

There have been well over 100 successful shuttle missions since 12 Apr 1981 (nearly 25 years). NASA certainly does not want to risk another disaster. They are erring on the side of caution. The next shuttle launch (hopefully in May) will show that they are committed to the manned space program - a program that is inharently dangerous.

FFrench

quote:Originally posted by Astro Bill:I am in agreement with Philip and Sally Ride that another fatal accident in the manned space program would end the manned space program.

Except Ride does not say that in the article linked above. She says the end of America's Shuttle program, not the end of American manned space flight. There's quite a difference (I would hope).

FF

Astro Bill

quote:Originally posted by FFrench: Except Ride does not say that in the article linked above. She says the end of America's Shuttle program, not the end of American manned space flight. There's quite a difference (I would hope).

FF

But FF, there is no other US manned space program now or for the many years into the future except for the Space Shuttle. I presumed that she meant the shuttle program, since there is no other US manned space program at this time.

FFrench

quote:Originally posted by Astro Bill: since there is no other US manned space program at this time.

There's a guy on the space station right now who might disagree with you...

...and I am not sure I follow you here. I think there is quite a difference between saying an accident would probably end the Shuttle program early (as Ride states) and saying an accident would definitely end all future NASA manned programs (as you seem to be saying). One would be early retirement of an old system and replacing it with a new one (while the US part of ISS would probably continue as a collaborative international program in some form). The other would be abandoning all manned space ambitions altogether. I can't imagine two more different futures, to be honest.

Astro Bill

IF the Space Shuttle program should somehow be suddenly ended, THERE WOULD BE NO OTHER US MANNED SPACE PROGRAM. US participation in the ISS would be via the Russian Soyuz vehicles, not a US vehicle.

I do not expect any further accidents in the Space Shuttle program. But if there is one it will be the end of the shuttle and the end of any US manned flights for the near future (10 years or so). I do not count any astronauts who may be launched on the Soyuz by Russia. The Return to the Moon program is well into the future (2017+). We are not discussing that here.

[This message has been edited by Astro Bill (edited February 02, 2006).]

FFrench

Bill, disregarding the fact that ISS itself is a US manned space program (in collaboration with others), not just the means to get there...

In this thread, you've amended your definition of "ending manned space flight" from the dismantling of NASA and no more space flight until another generation looks at it, to talking about "the near future" and "10 years or so" until resumption.

You have the right to change your mind as much as you like, of course, but it makes it difficult to discuss anything when your meanings keep shifting. But, in truth, I was more concerned that you were quoting former astronauts saying things that they did not in fact say.

I enjoy your posts, and agree with many - but think I'll end my participation in this particular thread.

mjanovec

quote:Originally posted by Astro Bill:But if there is one it will be the end of the shuttle and the end of any US manned flights for the near future (10 years or so). I do not count any astronauts who may be launched on the Soyuz by Russia. The Return to the Moon program is well into the future (2017+). We are not discussing that here.

There will be flights between the end of the Shuttle program and the future lunar flights. The CEV is planned to fly by 2012, which is only 6 years away if all remains on schedule (not 10+ years). I imagine it will be making numerous trips to the ISS long before it goes to the moon.

If, God forbid, another Shuttle accident took place, my guess is that the Shuttle would be grounded permanently and work on the CEV would accelerate...as the money devoted to the Shuttle program could be re-diverted to getting the CEV completed more quickly. In that case, the CEV may fly even earlier. (As a side note, I wonder if the CEV will be given unmanned flights first, like NASA did for Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo).

The only instance in which a Shuttle accident would likely end manned flight for a long time period would be if the next accident could be tied to yet another failure in NASA management to listen to the warnings (e.g. O-rings, foam shedding, etc.). Confidence in NASA might be lost if that were to happen...and congress might pull a good chunk of the funding for other programs.

Robert Pearlman

quote:Originally posted by mjanovec:(As a side note, I wonder if the CEV will be given unmanned flights first, like NASA did for Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo).

Per NASA documents I have seen, the planned milestones as of now are as follows:

Early 2012 - first manned flight of CLV/CEV with manual docking to ISS

Mid 2012 - second manned flight of CLV/CEV with autonomous docking to ISS

Late 2012 - third manned flight of CLV/CEV with ISS crew rotation

(The schedule proceeds but this should answer, at least at this early date, that unmanned test flights are planned and a timeline much sooner than 2017 is underway for a new US manned program.)

pokey

The HST repair mission is scheduled for December 2007. Of course, it may slip to December 2010, but that's the working date.

Astro Bill

quote:Originally posted by pokey:The HST repair mission is scheduled for December 2007. Of course, it may slip to December 2010, but that's the working date.

According to the US 2006 Budget, which was passed in the US House of Rep. this week, there are no funds for the Hubble servicing mission. However, there is $75-million allocated for a de-orbit mission for the HST and a request for funds to research how to service the HST without the Space Shuttle, as mentioned in the following article:http://www.space.com/news/nasa_budget_050207.html

[This message has been edited by Astro Bill (edited February 03, 2006).]

pokey

I personally believe that the $ spent on servicing HST would be better spent on building/launching a new one. But the Hubble huggers prevail. JSC just got turned on to a Dec. 2007 flight for the final servicing flight. I also personally believe that if there are more thermal protection issues with launches then this flight will not happen because a Hubble flight can't make the orbital plane manueuvers with the fuel on board in a timely manner to rendezvous with ISS for a safe haven.

quote:Originally posted by pokey:I personally believe that the $ spent on servicing HST would be better spent on building/launching a new one. But the Hubble huggers prevail. JSC just got turned on to a Dec. 2007 flight for the final servicing flight. I also personally believe that if there are more thermal protection issues with launches then this flight will not happen because a Hubble flight can't make the orbital plane manueuvers with the fuel on board in a timely manner to rendezvous with ISS for a safe haven.

My guess is that a Hubble mission would require that a backup Shuttle be available for rescue (e.g. an STS-300). If the Shuttle were to fly a Hubble servicing mission (assuming "regular" flights resume shortly after STS-121), the best scenario would be to launch the servicing mission shortly before an ISS Shuttle mission...perhaps within weeks of each other and perhaps even with two Shuttles at the launch pad (one on Pad 39A and one on Pad 39B). That might not be the plan, but it would appear to make sense.

I'm not sure what "Hubble huggers" refers to, but I think it would be hard to argue the Hubble is one of NASA's greatest successes since the end of Apollo. Ideally, a replacement for Hubble would in the works by now. Assuming construction on a "new" Hubble started today, it would still be several years before it could be operational. If nothing else, servicing the existing Hubble buys us more time until a replacement can be made. It is more cost efficient to keep using existing technology as long as it proves to be functional. Hubble continues to amaze us with it's performance and, assuming it is serviced, will continue to provide great science...which will be important in the couple of years between the end of the Shuttle program and the start of the CEV manned flights.